3 ms·
> In Monday's decision, the NLRB regional director said that Amazon "engaged in objectionable conduct that warrants setting aside the election." Is there a pub
by jrochkind1 5y ago
> In Monday's decision, the NLRB regional director said that Amazon "engaged in objectionable conduct that warrants setting aside the election."
Is there a public written NLRB decision? The OP didn't link to it or mention the specifics. Not a great article.
Or is there another way to see the specifics on what the NLRB considered to be the "objectionable conduct that warrants setting aside the election"?
It would be good to have the specifics of what the NLRB actually decided was this before diving into arguing about it, wouldn't it?
- boomboomsubban 5y agohttps://www.nlrb.gov/case/10-RC-269250 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/10-RC-269250 The specifics have been mentioned before, this article was light on them but they were already known.
- jrochkind1 5y agoThanks! Lots of facts have been mentioned before, but which ones did the NLRB decide justified an election redo, is the question. From the 11/29 Supplemental Decision (which I guessed was the relevant one just cause it was 11/29), it looks like: 1. Mainly, the mailbox in the parking lot. a bunch of different issues with it's existence and treatment that violated various rules. ("OBJECTIONS 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, AND 17 – THE MAILBOX OBJECTIONS") 2. Employer "present[ing] small groups of employees with the open and observable choice to pick up or not pick up “Vote No” paraphernalia in front of Employer agents," ("OBJECTION 11 – “VOTE NO” PARAPHERNALIA POLLING"). That's it. Just these. The details are of course in the fairly readable document, including the specifics (very specifics) on why these things were problematic.